Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5620168" data-attributes="member: 22779">On a side note, I find it interesting that 4e is basically screwed either way it goes.One of the big criticisms of 4e was spamming attacks.  Players doing the same thing over and over and over again, combat after combat.But now, the criticism is that 4e doesn't let you spam attacks over and over again and it should.Which is it?  Is it better to allow characters to pick one or two tactics (core tripper for example) and do the same thing over and over and over again, or is it better to have mechanics in place that will let you trip something, but, not all the time, thus forcing characters to choose other tactics as the combat unfolds?Me?  I much prefer 4e's very mobile combat.  Every combat unfolds differently since every character interacts with every other character's abilities differently every time.  Even at very low levels, each character has about six or so different options in any given round.  And those options generally synergise with other character's options.  -----But, on to the whole "dissacciated mechanics" thing.  For what it's worth, I think the basic mistake being made here is the assumption that there must be one and only one explanation for every single effect and that explanation must be pre-set.  This is mostly how 3e worked.  If you wanted to do something, you had to choose from effects that were pre-defined.Now, you can certainly change those definitions.  But, now you're into disassociated mechanics territory.  If the in-game justification for X can be modified to fit whatever situation, then that mechanic is now associated with every situation into which it can be fit.I had a discussion a while ago on these boards about my 4e rogue/cleric tapping a lock with his holy symbol and making the lock spring open.  I have no problems doing that with 4e mechanics because there are no associated in game explanations for how the Open Lock skill works.  Open Lock, in the PHB simply says, "Make a thievery check to pick a lock".  That's it.  I don't need tools, I don't have any other in game justifications.Now, some people strongly dislike this.  They want Open Lock to work one way and one way only - you need Thieves Tools (3e and earlier) to open a lock.  No Thieves Tools (whether regular or crafted on the spot) and you can't open the lock.  Now, if I CAN open the lock in 3e by tapping it with my holy symbol, then you have to ignore the text of the 3e Open Lock skill.  Which means that you have gone into disassociated mechanics territory since there is no real in-game justification for how I can open the lock by tapping it with my holy symbol and rolling an Open Locks check.The thing is, DM's do this all the time.  Situations come up all the time and we modify existing rules to fit.  But, if that's what you're doing, then the mechanics are no longer simply associated with whatever the original association was.  Save Vs Petrification is used to jump a pit.  Why?  Because the number is just about right for a DC.  It has no association in the game whatsoever.But, we do it all the time.Pemerton is spot on when he says that the primary difference between 4e and earlier editions isn't the existence of disassociated mechanics, it's that 4e embraces their use.</blockquote>

Verification